Communication Power as a Mediator on Networking and Career ...ibimapublishing.com/articles/CIBIMA/2017/424146/424146.pdf · expertise through making use of their linkages. The present

IBIMA Publishing

Communications of the IBIMA

http://ibimapublishing.com/articles/CIBIMA/2017/424146/

Vol. 2017 (2017), Article ID 424146, 14 pages

DOI: 10.5171/2017.424146

______________

Cite this Article as: Saodah Wok and Junaidah Hashim (2017)," Communication Power as a Mediator on

Networking and Career Success: A Structural Equation Modeling Approach ", Communications of the IBIMA,

Vol. 2017 (2017), Article ID 424146, DOI: 10.5171/2017.424146

Research Article

Communication Power as a Mediator on

Networking and Career Success: A Structural

Equation Modeling Approach

Saodah Wok1 and Junaidah Hashim

2

1Department of Communication, International Islamic University Malaysia (IIUM), Jalan Gombak,

Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

2Department of Business Administration, IIUM, Jalan Gombak, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

Correspondence should be addressed to: Saodah Wok; [email protected],

Received date: 22 September ; Accepted date: 13 February 2017; Published date: 27 February 2017

Academic Editor: Dang Merduwati Hashim

Copyright © 2017. Saodah Wok and Junaidah Hashim . Distributed under Creative Commons CC-BY 4.0

Introduction

Information is power. Developing a network

of contacts inside and outside of organization

provides immense and valuable information

which can be beneficial in many ways.

Indeed, internal and external contacts can

provide opportunities to advance in one’s

career. Networking behaviors build and

maintain informal contacts to enhance career

success (Forret & Dougherty, 2004; Luthans,

Rosenkrantz & Hennessey, 1985; Michael &

Yukl, 1993). Networking is positively related

to both objective and subjective measures of

Abstract

This study investigates the mediating effect of communication power on networking and career

success. It also tests the moderating effects of proactive personality and self-efficacy in the

model. The study employs a quantitative research design. It uses a survey method using

questionnaire for data collection.The population of interest is the employees at the supervisory

or managerial position in various organizations in Malaysia. A sample size of 400

supervisor/managers was used for the study. Most of the measures were adapted from

established scales. The findings reveal that there is a mediating effect of communication power

on the relationships. This means that mentoring influences the communication power which in

turn influences career success. This study significantly contributes to the existing knowledge

because not much is known about communication power effect on career success except

Castells work (2007). With the present influence of communication technology at the

workplace, the findings of this study are useful to Human Resource (HR) practitioners for

strategizing organisation career management and mentoring programme. This study does not

only examine the effect of the two variables, information power and career success; it goes a

step further by taking mentoring into the model.

Keywords: Career success, Communication and information power, Mentoring, Proactive personality.

Communications of the IBIMA 2

_____________________________________________________________________________

______________

Saodah Wok and Junaidah Hashim (2017), Communications of the IBIMA, DOI: 10.5171/2017.424146

career success (Forret & Dougherty, 2004;

Langford, 2000; Michael & Yukl, 1993; Orpen,

1996). Similarly, literature suggests that

networking behaviors, such as having

business discussion, attending conference,

and keep contacting colleagues, enhance

career success (Nierenberg, 2002; Torres,

2005; Welch, 1980).

However, people rarely make use of their

existing networks effectively. They think that

if they can perform well, they can be

acknowledged and get promoted. With

modern technology, they cannot stay in

isolation. Hopefully, the internally connected

employees are also popular to the outside

organizations. That is why boundary

spanners are useful for organization linkages.

Therefore, they have to harness the

contemporary technology to project

themselves because acknowledgement

comes across borders, not just organization,

but worldwide. If they want support from

peers, they can get acknowledged for the

expertise through making use of their

linkages.

The present study will extend the existing

knowledge in this field. Although, we know

networking affects career success; not much

is known about how it happens. With the

empirical evidence on how network affects

career success, both individual and

organization will get the benefits.

Individuals, who progress well in their

career, tend to be loyal and organization is

able to retain them (Aquino, Griffeth, Allen, &

Hom, 1997).

This study contributes to the communication

literature. For example, this study integrates

the issues of networking behaviors,

communication power, career success and

personality. Therefore, this study is unique in

such a way that networking behaviors

involve both the internal and external

entities to the organization. They are studied

in relation to information power and

relationship power. Such knowledge can help

employees and managers to better target

their networking behaviors internally and

externally. Relatively little, or in some cases

no, prior research exists on these outcomes.

The present study tests a comprehensive

model of employees’ career success involving

several predictors, which are based on past

research. It is expected that such model is

able to provide evidence regarding the

network contribution to career success

among employees.

Theoretical Framework

Social Capital Theory

Modern theories of Social Capital (Seibert,

Kraimer & Liden, 2001) focus on the

importance of bridging and networking

functions as interactions and networking are

bound to improve profits such as reinforced

identity and recognition (Bourdieu, 1986;

Burt, 1992; Coleman, 1990; Erickson, 1995;

Flap, 1994; Lin, 1982; Lin, 1999; Portes,

1998; Putnam, 1995).

Previous research on the

connection/relationship and information

power and career success is rare. We did not

find any prominent research in this topic

except studies by Bahniuk and her

colleagues. Bahniuk, Hill and Darus (1996),

and Dobos, Bahniuk and Hill (1991)

conducted a few series of studies on this

topic. Hill, Bahniuk and Dobos (1994)

developed a power-gaining communication

model based on information power and

connection power. They found that power-

gaining communication relationship

enhances career success.

Networking

The present study adopts previously well-

defined networking which states that

“behaviors that are aimed at building,

maintaining, and using informal

relationships that possess the potential

benefit to facilitate work-related activities of

individuals by voluntarily granting access to

resources and maximizing common

advantages” (Forret & Dougherty, 2004;

Wolff & Moser, 2008). Networking is

analyzed at the behavioral level (Michael &

Yukl, 1993; Wanber, Kanfer & Banas, 2000;

Witt, 2004). Networking success depends on

the ability to interact and to relate with

others and that success comes not only with

whom one knows, but also how one knows

one another.

Mohd. Rasdi, Garavan and Ismail (2011), in

their study on proactive behavior in

3 Communications of the IBIMA

_____________________________________________________________________________

_______________


Malaysia, found that networking behavior

positively relates with objective and

subjective career success of employees in the

public sector in Malaysia. Networking affects

career success through increased salary,

promotion, and career satisfaction (Seibert,

Kraimer & Liden, 2001). This is not only

among the employees of the private sector

but also in the public sector. Networking

behaviors can build and maintain informal

contacts toward achieving career success

(Forret & Dougherty, 2004; Luthans,

Rosenkrantz, & Hennessey, 1985; Michael &

Yukl, 1993). Furthermore, networking

correlates with performance (Sturges,

Conway, Guest & Liefhooghe, 2005;

Thompson, 2005, cited in Wolff & Moser,

2008). Based on the evidence from previous

networking studies on career development

process (Higgins & Kram, 2001; Ismail &

Mohd Rasdi, 2007; Van Emmerik et al.,

2006), we propose networking will produce

communication power which in turn

influences career success.

Career Success

Career success is conceptualized as “both

real/objective and perceived/subjective

achievements in individuals’ work lives”

(Judge, Cable, Boudreau, & Bretz, 1995). For

the present study, only objective career

outcomes will be used. From the standpoint

of objective career outcomes, career success

of employees is mainly measured based on

money and position (Feldman, 1989; Hall,

1976). Career success can also be looked at

in terms of promotion, salary increment,

individual performance, and one’s success

and contributions to the organization

(Bowen, 1986; Kanter, 1977; Kram, 1983;

Levinson et al., 1978; Morris, 1969; Phillip-

Jones, 1982; Speizer, 1981).

Furthermore, objective career success is

observable career accomplishments and they

are tangible outcomes in nature. Therefore,

objective career outcomes can be seen as

increase in annual salary, scope of

responsibility, promotion to a higher level,

and receiving bonuses, incentives, and other

fringe benefits.

Information Power as a Mediator

In this study, we propose communication

power comprised of information power and

relationship power. Information power

comes from access to and control over

information. According to Hershey,

Blanchard and Natemeyer (1979),

“information power is based on the

possession of or access to information that is

valuable to others (p. 419). Therefore, the

person who possesses the needed

information by other is influential and

becomes powerful. Increased access to

information enables employees to increase

their knowledge and to help them deal with

specific issues that they might have at work.

Control of information flow usually relates to

formal communication network. The more

valuable the resource is to the company or

superior and the greater is the level of

mastery the person has on the information or

materials, the more influential he/she will

become.

Relationship power is based upon whom you

know. Relationship power or connection

power as termed by Hershey, Blanchard and

Natemeyer (1979) refers to the power one

gains from relationship with the power of

others. Therefore, when one has the

connections, he/she is bound to have the

relationship power and thus becomes a

popular emergent leader. The influence of

power within the interaction of employees at

workplace is significant. If one can reach,

either directly or indirectly, the dominant

coalition in the organization, one has a better

prospect for influence and control over the

whole organization.

Being liked and highly regarded among other

teams and departments will increase one’s

chance of being promoted or influencing the

outcome of a decision. Work connections are

vehicle for resource and reward exchange.

The result is that better-connected people do

better (Burt, 2000).

Personality and Self-Efficacy As

Moderators

A proactive personality is identified as

“someone who is relatively unaffected by

situational forces, and who actively initiates

environmental change” (Bateman & Crant,


_____________________________________________________________________________

______________


1993). Highly proactive persons tend to take

action to ensure constructive outcomes

(Cunningham & De La Rosa, 2008; Parker &

Sprigg, 1999). Previous research has

discussed proactive personality relationship

with objective career success (Erdogan &

Bauer, 2005; Ng et al., 2005; Seibert et al.,

1999). McCourt and Foon (2007), and Mohd

Rasdi et al. (2011) argued that proactive

behaviors have important direct and

contingent effects on career outcomes. It is

possible that proactive personality

moderates the relationships between

networking, communication power and

career success.

Self-efficacy can moderate behavioral change

(Bandura, 1977). Since self-efficacy refers to

the belief in one’s capability to perform a

specific task, therefore, it can be summarized

as one’s capabilities to organize and execute

courses of action required to attain desired

goal, specifically, own performance at

workplace (Bandura, 1986). Therefore, a

self-efficacious employee is anxious to learn

from others for self-development. With the

support from networking and

communication power, individuals with high

self-efficacy are able to perform better and

thus, succeed in their career endeavor.

Based on the above literature (Figure 1), we

develop the following hypotheses:

H1: Networking positively correlates with

career success.

H2: Networking positively correlates with

communication power.

H3: Communication power positively

correlates with career success.

H4: Communication power mediates the

relationship between networking and career

success.

H5: Proactive personality moderates the

relationship between communication power

and career success.

H6: Self-efficacy moderates the relationship

between communication power and career

success.

Methodology

The study employs a quantitative research

design. It uses a survey method and used

questionnaire as the research instrument for

data collection. A total of 308 respondents,

comprising of the middle-level management

level, representing various companies, such

as, manufacturing, services, health, and

education, were collected for the duration of

two months. Trained enumerators were

assigned to various locations in Kuala

Lumpur and Selangor, Malaysia.


_____________________________________________________________________________

_______________


Most of the measures are adapted from

established scales. Career success items and

networking items are adapted from

Gevorkyan (2011), self-efficacy items are

taken and adapted from Clark and Creswell

(2010), and proactive personality items are

taken and adapted from Owen (2009). Items

for information power and relationship

power are self-developed by the researchers.

The constructs are found to be reliable with

Cronbach’s alpha (Table 1) for networking

(α=.907), communication power (α=.929),

personality (α=.896), and career success

(α=.928). The dimensions of each construct

were further confirmed by using Structural

Equation Modelling (SEM) AMOS.

Findings of the Study

The majority of the respondents (n=308) of

the study are Malays (81.8%), comprising of

162 females and 146 males, mainly belonged

to the 26-35 age group (43.2%), and with

Bachelor’s degree (46.1%). In terms of job-

related characteristics, the respondents

mainly worked in the public sector inclusive

of with the Government of Malaysia (51.9%)

worked in the private sector (48.1%) and

with 158 of them with 1-5 years of working

experience, almost all work on a full-time

basis, as executive officers (36.0%) and on a

full-time basis.

Measurement Model

Using Maximum Likelihood (ML) Estimation,

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) was

conducted separately for all the constructs in

this study: internal contact (INT), external

contact (EX), information power (INF),

relational power (REL), and career success

(CS) to test their reliability and validity.

Table 2 provides valid items for the

measurement model. Several fit statistics

were employed to test the measurement

model. These include normative Chi square

(X2/df), Comparative Fit Index (CFI), Tucker-

Lewis Index (TLI), and Root Mean Square

Error Approximation (RMSEA). A good fitting

model can be achieved when the normative

Chi square is less than 3, CFI and TLI greater

than .90 and RMSEA is less than .05 (best) or

.080 (acceptable). Table 3 details the

recommended and actual values for the

fitting model (Figure 2).


_____________________________________________________________________________

______________


Table 2: Valid items for measurement model


_____________________________________________________________________________

_______________



_____________________________________________________________________________

______________


The initial CFAs failed to fit well to the

empirical data. Therefore, they were revised

accordingly. The revised CFAs had met the

threshold of goodness of fit indices. The fit

statistics suggested that INT (X2/df=3.00,

CFI=.961, TLI=.935, RMSEA=.081); EX (X2/df=

2.567, CFI=.980, TLI=.967, RMSEA=.071); INF

(X2/df=2.492, CFI=.973, TLI=.954,

RMSEA=.070); REL (X2/df=1.978, CFI=.988,

TLI=.980, RMSEA=.056); and CS (X2/df=1.656,

CFI=.984, TLI=.990, RMSEA=.046) were

consistent with the empirical data. Several

items were dropped due to estimation

violations as suggested by modification

indices. Consequently, these constructs were

combined in the measurement model to test

the convergent validity and discriminant

validity (Table 4). The measurement model

(Model 2) suggests adequate fit to the data

(X2/df=1.752, CFI=.935, TLI=.928,

RMSEA=.049). The factor loadings and

covariance were statistically significant at

.05. The highest correlation was between

relational power and information power

(r=.76, p=.000), followed by external

networking and relational power (r=.57,

p=.000).

Structural Model

Using the same criteria as discussed in the

measurement model, the fit statistics were

satisfactorily good, with X2/df=1.945,

CFI=.917, TLI=.909, RMSEA=.055 (Figure 3).

This study hypothesized that the two

dimensions of networking (internal and

external) would have significant impact on

the two dimensions of communication power

(information and relationship), which in

turn, significantly influence the career

success among the respondents.

Therefore, the hypothesized model suggested

that internal contact had statistically

significant impact on information power

(β=.31, p=.000) and relational power (β=.17,

p=.013), whereas external networking

exerted significant influence on information

power (β=.42, p=.000), as well as relational

power (β=.53, p=.000). In addition, the two

dimensions of communication power

significantly influenced the endogenous

variable (career success), with β=.37, p=.000

for information power and β=.20, p=.003 for

relational power (Table 5)


_____________________________________________________________________________

_______________


Mediating Effect of Communication Power

Dimensions

The mediating test was conducted based on

Baron and Kenny’s (1986) guidelines and it

was confirmed with the Sobel test (1982).

Baron and Kenny suggest that all variables

concerned must be significantly related to

one another. The mediator should

significantly be affecting the outcome

variable. Internal contact and external

contact are exogenous variables in this study,

whereas information power and relational

power are the mediating variables. Career

success is the only endogenous variable.

Looking at the path coefficients of the

revised model, it was found that the impact

of the exogenous variables (internal contact

and external contact) on information power

and relational power were statistically

significant. However, they had no direct

effects on the endogenous variable. In

addition, information power and relational

power (the mediators) had significant effects

on the dependent variable. Therefore, the

recommended criterion for mediation testing

was achieved.

Sobel test the significance of mediating

effects. The Sobel test suggested significant t-

tests for external contact (t=1.876, p=.030)

indicating that information power fully

mediates the relationship of these constructs

with career success, whereas relational

power (t=1.585, p=.056) did not mediate

internal contact on career success. However,

information power significantly mediates on

internal contact toward career success

(t=2.662, p=.003), as well as on external

contact toward career success (t=3.029,

p=.001).

Moderating Effect of Personality

Structural invariance was conducted in order

to see whether the model works in a similar

way for both low (N=153) and high (N=155)

proactive personality groups. Table 6

summarizes the results of invariance analysis

(moderating effect). As for the proactive

personality, the Chi-square for the

unrestricted model was 1287.281 (df=f 742),

whereas the Chi-square for the fully

constrained model was 1329 (df=769). The

Chi-square difference (41.947) was

significant since it is more than the critical

value (CV=40.11). It means that both low and

high personality groups are different at the

structural level. Overall, it can be concluded

that proactive personality moderates the

revised hypothesized model.

General self-efficacy was also tested for its

moderating effects on the hypothesized

model (Figure 3). The Chi-square value of the

unrestricted model (1220.04, df=736) was

less than the Chi square value of the fully

constrained model (1272.61, df=766). The

Chi-square difference (52.57) was significant

at 0.05 and greater than the critical value


_____________________________________________________________________________

______________


(43.77). Therefore, general self-efficacy

significantly moderates the model

hypothesized.

This study tests the mediating effect of

communication power dimension on

networking dimensions toward career

success. This study validated a model

hypothesizing that internal contact and

external contact are influential factors of

information power and relational power,

which in turn, influence the career success.

Prior testing the hypothesized model, a

confirmatory factor analysis using MLE, to

provide evidence of the construct validity

and reliability, was conducted. The structural

model, then, was tested using the same

criteria and adequately fitted to the empirical

data. There were significant impact of

internal and external contact on both

information power and relational power. The

information power significantly mediated the

relationship of the two dimensions of

networking with career success, whereas

relational power did not mediate that

relationship. On the other hand, personality

dimensions, namely, proactive personality

and general self-efficacy significantly

moderated the hypothesized model.

Therefore, all the hypotheses are supported.

Discussion and Conclusion

This study examines how networking

contributes to career success. Specifically, it

tests communication networks,

organizational contacts, and communication

power on career success. The study found

that both social and professional networks

enhance career success.

The theory of social capital that postulates

active interaction among people in a circle or


_____________________________________________________________________________

_______________


group is used to gain access to information

which is perceived as valuable is supported

by the study. The significant relationship

between networking and information power

supports the previous findings (Forret &

Dougherty, 2004; Wolff & Moser, 2006) that

suggest organizational behavior that is aimed

to build, maintain and use informal

relationship is to gain benefits and common

advantages. The benefits gained from the

networking could enhance an individual’s

reputation in acquiring valuable rewards and

resources from the organization regardless

of the actual job performance (Ferris & Judge,

1991; Luthans et al., 1988).

The study implies that employees in Malaysia

use their communication networks beyond

just getting connected with their friends. The

employees take the advantage both the

internal and external linkages. In fact, co-

worker sites, as social media platform,

should be used for their survival to enhance

career advancement at the workplace.

Therefore, senior managers need to develop

a clear communication strategy, using both

vertical and horizontal linkages through SNS

for career development purposes.

Boundary spanners, with internal and

external linkages, are at a strategic position

of their organizations. They should harness

the information power besides depending on

just relational power. Their positions are

strategic for career success where they can

easily forge joint venture projects with other

organizations for the benefit of their own

organization. Practically speaking,

networking is one of the means for having

access and control over useful information at

work. Therefore, it is good to provide

employees with networking opportunities

which are beneficial for their career success.

Given the variety of methods in networking

that ranged from online, offline and face-to-

face, it is good to diversify the networking

means. Indeed, SNS could be used to enhance

networking. The Social Capital Theory holds

true for this study, with all the hypotheses

being supported.

There are a few limitations of this study that

need to be mentioned. The demographic

characteristics of the respondents indicated

that the majority of them are Malays.

Therefore, the findings of the study have to

be interpreted with caution. This is because

due to tradition among the Malaysians,

especially the Malays, are inclined to rate

themselves lower. They are brought up to be

humble, not to project themselves. They

usually hesitate to rate the highest scale,

especially for their achievement. The

insignificant moderating effect of SNS infers

other possible moderating variables. We

could speculate the role of culture and/or

ethnicity for networking and information

power studies in the future. Culture and/or

ethnicity might have a bearing in the

preferred methods of networking (e.g., face-

to-face and online) that could influence the

effectiveness of networking on information

power. Therefore, in future studies, it is

worth examining the role of culture and/or

ethnicity as the moderator.

Obviously, more research is needed on

networking for career development and

success as communication networks,

organizational contacts and communication

are hastened by the use of SNS, when they

are diligently used. The present study

triggers more studies in this subject. SNS may

be a major contributor in knowledge sharing

but not for obtaining power over the

information. It is plausible to see how

knowledge sharing is different from

information power. The former aims to share

and disseminate information with others;

however, the latter intends to control the

dissemination of information. Future studies

should look into knowledge sharing and

information power.

References

1. Aquino, K., Griffeth, R W., Allen, D G. and

Hom, P W. (1997), ‘Integrating justice

constructs into the turnover process: A test

of a referent cognitions model,’ Academy of

Management Journal, 40, 1208-1227.

2. Bahniuk, M., Hill, S. and Darus, H. (1996),

‘The relationship of power-gaining

communication strategies to career success,’

Western Journal of Communication, 60 (4),

358-378.

3. Bandura, A. (1977) Social Learning

Theory, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New

Jersey.


_____________________________________________________________________________

______________


4. Bandura, A. (1986) Social Foundations of

Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive

Theory, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New

Jersey.

5. Baron, R M. and Kenny, D A. (1986), ‘The

moderator-mediator variable distinction in

social psychological research: Conceptual,

strategic, and statistical considerations,’

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,

51, 1173-1182.

6. Bateman, T S. and Crant, J M. (1993), ‘The

proactive component of organizational

behavior: A measure and correlates,’ Journal

of Organizational Behavior, 14, 103-118.

7. Bourdieu, P. (1986), The forms of capital,

Handbook of Theory and Research for the

Sociology of Education, Richardson, J G. (ed),

Greenwood Press, Westport, Connecticut.

8. Bowen, D. (1986) ‘The role of

identification in mentoring female mentees,’

Group and Organization Studies, 11 (2), 61-

74.

9. Burt, R S. (1992) Structural Holes: The

Social Structure of Competition, Harvard

University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

10. Burt, R S. (1997) The contingent value of

social capital, Administrative Science

Quarterly, 42 (2), 339-365.

11. Burt, R S. (2000) ‘The network structure

of social capital,’ Research in Organizational

Behavior, 22, 345-423.

12. Castells, M. (2007) ‘Communication,

power and counter-power in the network

society,’ International Journal of

Communication, 1, 238-206.

13. Clark, V L. and Creswell, J W. (2010)

Understanding Research: A Consumer’s

Guide, Prentice Hall- Merrill, Upper Saddle

River, New Jersey.

14. Coleman, J S. (1990) Foundations of

Social Theory, Harvard University Press,

Cambridge, Massachusetts.

15. Cunningham, C J L. and De Le Rosa, G.

(2008), ‘Proactive personality as a complex

moderator in the stress process,’ Journal of

Occupational Health Psychology, 13 (3), 271-

282.

16. Dobos, J., Bahniuk, M. and Hill, S. (1991),

‘Power-gaining communication strategies

and career success,’ Southern Communication

Journal, 57 (1), 35-48.

17. Erdogan, B. and Bauer, T N. (2005),

‘Enhancing career benefits of proactive

personality: The role of fit with jobs and

organizations,’ Personnel Psychology, 58, 859-

891.

18. Erickson, B H. (1995), ‘Networks,

success, and class structure: A total view,’

Sunbelt Social Networks Conference, 11-14

May 1995, Charleston.

19. Feldman, D C. (1989) ‘Careers in

organizations: Recent trends and future

directions,’ Journal of Management, 15, 135-

156.

20. Ferris, G R. and Judge, T A. (1991),

‘Personnel/human resources management: A

political influence perspective,’ Journal of

Management, 17, 447-488.

21. Flap, H D. (1994) ‘No man is an island:

The research program of a social capital

theory’, World Congress of Sociology, 20 July

1994, Bielefeld, Germany.

22. Forret, M F. and Dougherty, T W. (2004),

‘Networking behavior and career outcomes:

Differences for men and women?,’ Journal of

Organizational Behavior, 25, 419-437.

23. Gevorkyan, A V. and Gevorkyan, Ar.

(2011), Fundamental Uncertainty, Reserves

Funds, and Fiscal Policy Rules in Emerging

Financial Markets, Unpublished draft,

available upon request.

24. Hall, D T. (1976) Careers in Organization,

Goodyear, Santa Monica, California.

25. Hershey, P., Blanchard, K H., and

Natemeyer, W E. (1979), ‘Situational

leadership, perception, and the impact of

power,’ Group and Organizational Studies, 4,

418-428.

26. Higgins, M. and Kram, K. (2001),

‘Reconceptualizing mentoring at work: A

developmental


_____________________________________________________________________________

_______________


network perspective,’ Academy of

Management Review, 26 (2), 264-288.

27. Hill, S E K., Bahniuk, M H., Dobos, J. and

Rouner, D. (1989), ‘Mentoring and other

communication support in the academic

setting,’ Group and Organization Studies, 14,

355-368.

28. Ismail, M. and Mohd Rasdi, R. (2007),

‘Impact of networking on career

development: Experience of high-flying

women academics,’ Human Resource

Development International, 10 (2), 157-72.

29. Judge, T A., Cable, D M., Boudreau, J W.

and Bretz, R D. Jr. (1995), ‘An empirical

investigation of the predictors of executive

career success,’ Personnel Psychology, 48,

485-519.

30. Kanter, R M. (1977) Men and Women of

the Corporation, Basic Books, New York, New

York.

31. Koberg, C S., Boss, R W. and Goodman, E.

(1998), ‘Factors and outcomes associated

with mentoring among health care

professionals,’ Journal of Vocational Behavior,

53 (1), 58-72.

32. Kram, K E. (1983) ‘Phases of the mentor

relationship,’ Academy of Management

Journal, 26 (4), 608-625.

33. Langford, P H. (2000) Importance of

relationship management for the career

success of Australian managers,’ Australian

Journal of Psychology, 2, 163-168.

34. Levinson, D J., Darrow, C L., Klein, E.,

Levinson, M. and Mekee, B. (1978) The

Seasons of a Man’s Life, Alfred A. Knopf, New

York, New York.

35. Lin, N. (1999) ‘Building a network theory

of social capital,’ Connections, 22 (1), 28-51.

36. Lin, N., Ensel, W M. and Vaughn, J C.

(1981), ‘Social resources and occupational

status attainment,’ Social Forces, 59 (5),

1163-1181.

37. Lin, N., Ensel, W M. and Vaughn, J C.

(1982), ‘Social resources and strength of ties,’

American Sociological Review, 46 (4), 393-

405.

38. Luthans, F., Rosenkrantz, S A. and

Hennessey, H W. (1985), ‘What do successful

managers really do? An observation study of

managerial activities,’ Journal of Applied

Behavioral Science, 21, 255-270.

39. Luthans, F., Hodgetts, R M. and

Rosenkrantz, S A. (1988) Real Managers,

Ballinger, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

40. Mccourt, W. and Foon, L M. (2007),

‘Malaysia as model: Policy transferability in

an Asian country,’ Public Management

Review, 9 (2), 211-229.

41. Michael, J. and Yukl, G. (1993),

‘Managerial level and subunit function as

determinants of networking behavior in

organizations,’ Group & Organization

Management, 18 (3), 28-351.

42. Mohd. Rasdi, R., Garavan, T. and Ismail, M.

(2011), ‘Understanding proactive behaviours

and career success: Evidence from an

emerging economy,’ Organizations and

Markets in Emerging Economies, 2 (4), 53-71.

43. Morris, W. (1969) The American Heritage

Dictionary. Houghton Mifflin, New York, New

York.

44. Ng, T W H., Eby, L T., Sorensen, K L. and

Feldman, D C. (2005), ‘Predictors of objective

and subjective career success: A meta-

analysis,’ Personnel Psychology, 58, 367-408.

45. Nierenberg, A R. (2002) Nonstop

Networking, Capital Books, Hendon, Virginia.

46. Orpen, C. (1996) ‘Dependency as a

moderator of the effects of networking

behavior on managerial career success,’ The

Journal of Psychology, 130 (3), 245-248.

47. Owen, C. (2009) Toward developmental

work in complex and fallible systems, Risky

Work Environments: Reappraising Human

Work within Fallible Systems, Owen, C.,

Beguin, P. and Wackers, G. (eds), Aldershot,

Ashgate.

48. Parker, S K. and Sprigg, C A. (1999),

‘Minimizing strain and maximizing learning:


_____________________________________________________________________________

______________


The role of job demands, job control, and

proactive personality,’ Journal of Applied

Psychology, 84 (6), 925-939.

49. Phillip-Jones, L. (1982) Mentors and

Mentees, Arbor House, New York, New York.

50. Portes, A. (1998) ‘Social capital: Its origins

and applications in modern sociology,’

Annual Review of Sociology, 22, 1-24.

51. Putnam, R D. (1995) ‘Bowling alone,

revisited,’ The Responsive Community, Spring,

18-33.

52. Seibert, S E., Crant, J M. and Kraimer, M L.

(1999), ‘Proactive personality and career

success,’ Journal of Applied Psychology, 84,

416-427.

53. Seibert, S E., Kraimer, M L. and Liden, R C.

(2001), ‘A social capital theory of career

success,’ Academy of Management Journal, 44

(2), 219-237.

54. Sobel, M E. (1982) Asymptotic intervals

for indirect effects in structural equations

models, Sociological Methodology, Leinhart,

S. (ed.), Jossey-Bass, San Francisco,

California.

55. Speizer, J. (1981) ‘Role models, mentors

and sponsors: The elusive concepts,’ Signs, 6

(4), 692-712.

56. Thompson, J A. (2005) ‘Proactive

personality and job performance: A social

capital perspective,’ Journal of Applied

Psychology, 90, 1011-1017.

57. Torres, N L. (2005) ‘It's who you know,’

Entrepreneur, 33, 128-132.

58. Van Emmerik, I J H., Euwema, M C.,

Geschiere, M. and Schouten, M. (2006),

‘Networking your way through the

organization: The relationship between

participating in formal networks and career

satisfaction,’ Women in Management Review,

21 (1), 54-66.

59. Wanberg, C R., Kanfer, R. and Banas, G T.

(2000), ‘Predictors and outcomes of

networking intensity among unemployed job

seekers,’ Journal of Applied Psychology, 85,

491-503.

60. Welch, M S. (1980) Networking, Harcourt

Brace Jovanovich, New York, New York.

61. Witt, P. (2004) ‘Entrepreneurs' networks

and the success of start-ups,’

Entrepreneurship &

Regional Development, 16, 391-412.

62. Wolff, H. and Moser, K. (2008) Effects of

Networking on Career Success: A

Longitudinal Study, LASER Discussion

Papers, Paper No. 24.

Documents

Communication Power as a Mediator on Networking and Career ...ibimapublishing.com/articles/CIBIMA/2017/424146/424146.pdf · expertise through making use of their linkages. The present